Ontological Arguements

Question 1

How do the ontological arguments aim to prove the existence of God?

Answer 1

Ontological arguments aim to prove God’s existence from the definition of God purely through a priori reasoning.

Question 2

A priori knowledge

Answer 2

knowledge that doesn’t require experience of the world to confirm – for example, you don’t need to find two stones and count them to know that “1+1=2” is true, because you can just work it out in your head (through a priori reasoning).

Question 3

Essay thesis:

Answer 3

In this essay I will consider three variations of the ontological argument and argue that all fail to prove God exists.

Question 4

St. Anslem’s ontological arguement

Answer 4

Anselm defines God as “a being greater than which cannot be conceived” - i.e. God is the greatest being we could possibly imagine. Using this definition, Anselm makes the following argument:
1. God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
2. We can coherently conceive of such a being
3. It is greater to exist in reality than it is to exist in the mind
4. Therefore, God exists

Question 5

Explain premise three of Anselm’s ontological arguement

Answer 5

Say we imagine two beings, one being is maximally great in every possible way but only exists in the mind, and the other being is maximally great in every way but exists in reality. The second being (the one that exists in reality) is presumably greater than the one that only exists in the mind and so better fits Anselm’s definition of “a being greater than which cannot be conceived.” Therefore, Anselm argues, God exists.

Question 6

Gaunilo’s objection

Answer 6

the same reasoning Anselm uses to prove God exists can be used to define all sorts of things into existence

Question 7

Gaunilo’s island example

Answer 7

1. The perfect island is an island greater than which cannot be conceived
2. We can coherently conceive of such an island
3. It is greater to exist in reality than it is to exist in the mind
4. Therefore, the perfect island exists

Question 8

What does Gaunilo’s objection tell us?

Answer 8

This same reasoning could apply to anything – the perfect pizza, the perfect car, the perfect computer – but it doesn’t mean these things actually exist. The absurd conclusion of Gaunilo’s (and similar) arguments demonstrates that Anselm’s argument must make a mistake somewhere.

Question 9

Descartes ontological argument

Answer 9

This argument is very similar to Anselm’s, except it uses the concept of a perfect being rather than a being greater than which cannot be conceived.
P1)I have the idea of God
P2)The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
P3)A supremely perfect being does not lack any perfection
P4)Existence is a perfection
C)Therefore, God exists.

Question 10

What does Descartes use his ontological arguement to say?

Answer 10

Descartes argues this shows that ‘God does not exist’ is a self-contradiction.
Hume uses this claim as the basis for his objection to the ontological argument.

Question 11

HUME: ‘GOD DOES NOT EXIST’ IS NOT A CONTRADICTION

Answer 11

If ontological arguments succeed, ‘God does not exist’ is a contradiction
A contradiction cannot be coherently conceived
But ‘God does not exist’ can be coherently conceived
Therefore, ‘God does not exist’ is not a contradiction
Therefore, ontological arguments do not succeed.

Question 12

Immanuel Kant’s objection to Anslem (and Descartes)

Answer 12

Explains why Anselm’s and Gaunilo’s arguments aren’t sound.
Kant argues that “existence” is not a real predicate of things in the same way that, for example, ‘green’ is a predicate of grass.

Question 13

Explain Kant’s objection + unicorn example

Answer 13

If you try to add the property of “existence” to something, the thing doesn’t change/doesn’t add anything
Example: if you imagine a unicorn and then you imagine a unicorn that exists, you would imagine exactly the same thing.

Question 14

How does Kant’s objection apply to God’s “necessary predicate of existence”

Answer 14

Instead, when people say “God exists”, what they actually mean is “God exists in this world” – which is something that has to be confirmed
through empirical observation and cannot be deduced from the concept itself. Therefore the ontological arguments fail in this sense. If existence is not a predicate then Anselm’s premise 3 is not true and thus Anselm’s ontological argument does not prove God exists.

Question 15

How does Malcom reply to Kant?

Answer 15

Accepts Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate and instead presents the argument differently.
Norman Malcolm’s ontological argument appeals to necessary existence as a property of God.

Question 16

necessary truth vs contingently true

Answer 16

A necessary truth is something that must be true, such as “1+1=2” whereas something that is contingently true is something that might not have been true, such as “Earth is the third planet from the sun.”

Question 17

Malcom’s arguement

Answer 17

1. Either God exists or does not exist
2. God cannot come into existence or go out of existence
3. Therefore, if God exists, God exists necessarily
4. Therefore, if God does not exist, God’s existence is impossible
5. Therefore, either God exists necessarily or God’s existence is impossible
6. God’s existence is not impossible
7. Therefore, God exists necessarily

Question 18

How does Malcom’s argument avoid Kant’s objection?

Answer 18

Unlike ordinary, necessary existence is a real predicate because if something has necessary existence then this property adds something to our understanding of it. Thus, Malcolm’s ontological argument is not subject to Kant’s criticism that existence is not a real predicate.

Question 19

Why is Malcom’s arguement invalid?

Answer 19

because it relies on two different meanings of “necessary”, which change during the course of his argument.

Question 20

Explain why Malcom’s argument is invalid

Answer 20

At first, Malcolm is talking about “necessary existence” in the sense of a property that something can or can’t have. Malcolm’s argument is that, if God exists, then God has this property. By the end of the argument, though, Malcolm is talking about “necessary existence” in the sense that it is a necessary truth that God exists. But this is not the same thing.

Question 21

What does the problem with Malcolm’s argument tell us

Answer 21

All Malcolm has shown is that if God exists, then it is a necessary truth that God exists (and also if God does not exist then God’s existence is impossible). However, whether God has the property of necessary existence depends on whether or not God exists, which Malcolm hasn’t shown either way.